THANDAMMA Vs. ARIYA BHATTATHIRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arise out of orders passed by the court below, recording a finding on issue 8 which related to the maintainability of the suit in view of Proclamation X of 1119 (Cochin) and another order permitting the plaintiff's application, M. P. 899 of 1951 for withdrawing or abandoning that part of the relief claimed in the plaint relating to renewal fee. The suit was filed by the Jenmi respondent against the petitioners who were defendants and kanom tenants under the Jenmi. Two causes of action, one for arrears of michavarom and another for renewal fee were joined in the suit which was filed in the year 1950 as O.S. 589 of 1950. It was contended by the defendants inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable on account of Cochin Proclamation, X of 1119 which, according to them prohibited the institution of suits which had any connection with a claim for renewal fee. Issue 8 was framed by the court below on this question. The finding recorded by the court in favour of the maintainability of the suit is challenged before us.

(2.) Proclamation X of 1119 reads thus:

(3.) The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that as the Proclamation provides that "no suit involving claims for renewal fees shall be instituted" and this suit is one involving a claim for renewal fees, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The provision of the Civil Procedure Code to the effect that a suit is to be instituted by the presentation of a plaint, is relied upon. It is contended that as the word "involve" means "include in the dictionary and there being no ambiguity about that word, no question of interpretation arises and what is to be done is merely to apply the statute literally and hold that the suit cannot be entertained. It is contended that in this view the Preamble to the Proclamation cannot be looked into.